A year after its Sundance premiere, This Film Is Not Yet Rated is still sending Hollywood reeling. Kirby Dick’s documentary (now available on DVD) succeeds in unmasking the closely guarded identities of the members of the ratings board run by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)—one of the most secretive groups in the nation—that determine the fate of hundreds of films a year by giving them G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 ratings. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dick’s film received a NC-17—a rating he appealed. Although many have yet to see the doc, it stirred up enough noise that the MPAA recently announced plans to reform the ratings system, adding a final capstone to the story.

Dick: We had some moles that got information for us we couldn’t put in the film, but they corroborated that, whenever there’s a vacancy, [ratings-board chair] Joan Graves will just ask board members who else they know who might want to join. That’s it—it’s not an open process. Its one way Joan keeps control of the board, since if a friend recommends another friend, the new board member is not going to rock the boat.

I think Joan’s agenda is more corporate than political. I mean, she chairs the board and exerts, by far, the most power on the board, and if there’s a tie she votes twice and breaks it. What’s significant about her being Republican is how she sees her job less as overseeing a moralistically-driven ratings board and more as overseeing a corporate, or bottom-line, ratings board. The MPAA really doesn’t care one way or the other whether there’s a rating for a film: They want to be sure the product gets through with ratings the studios like. And they keep the process secret so no one asks what biases there are. A lot of people think the ratings board is a governmental organization, which is also just fine with the MPAA. I think Joan’s aware there’s a portion of the country that’s very conservative and that she and the board would receive pressure if certain films were given ratings conservatives didn’t like, so her goal is preemption by censoring in advance.

I also think there might have been one or two that were pretty amused—one or two that believe the whole [ratings process] is a ridiculous construct. The others were upset because I wasn’t playing by the rules and wasn’t using my 15 minutes to make a presentation for my case. I was debating the validity of the rules, which they found exasperating. Despite this, I should say the MPAA wants to act very kind and warm and understanding—especially the MPAA’s attorney. I mean, he just wouldn’t be rude on the phone, even though he might have seethed underneath. It’s all very strategic.

It was $30,000 in the late 1990s; now its $40,000 or $45,000; the MPAA likens it to the starting salary for teachers. Still, for someone performing that service, and with so much money at stake, one would think the raters would make more—that the MPAA would professionalize the job. It’s one of the most unprofessional boards in the country: There are no experts associated with the process, no training; it’s all very slapdash.

Someone suggested after the film came out that one or more board members were on the take, but I couldn’t corroborate that, so it isn’t in the film and I can’t say that. But just because I can’t make the statement and have no evidence doesn’t mean that senior people on the board, for example, aren’t on the take. Certainly it’s a possibility; I just have no evidence of it. It would be very easy for such a transaction to take place because of the relationships that develop between post-production people and the raters. I think what you have are people somewhat dissatisfied—their spouse is probably making more money and they probably do love movies. The thing is, once you’re in, you’re trapped: It’s not like you can move to another rater job. Joan has the power to hire and fire, and if the raters don’t vote the way she wants them to, she can exercise that power at will.